So, what happens to candle carriers through four coming years of darkness? Some distraught warriors – say Owen Jones in the Guardian – call for a “non-violent war of political attrition” against this “would-be tyrant … this billionaire plutocrat charlatan” called Donald. But if that seems a touch hyperactive, you can always use cash to underwrite truth.

Manhattan’s favourite Brummie comedian, John Oliver, made that precise connection as he contemplated the Trump hegemony last week. Fight back against fake news by subscribing (and boosting) real news sources. Donate to ProPublica, the investigative unit of American first choice. Pay good money for the New York Times, Washington Post and other key barriers along Breitbart Way. Don’t just sit there and moan. Put your hands in your pockets.

And – very happily – many readers and viewers seem to have heeded Oliver’s call. ProPublica donations suddenly multiplied 10 times over. “The Oliver show took us to a different level,” said its president. The New York Times has added a stonking 41,000 subs since election day. The Atlantic, Mother Jones and the Guardian in the US felt the same surge. If Trump’s election, in a perverse way, is good for the media as a whole, because fascination-cum-obsession drives audiences, so hard questioning of the Trump phenomenon may carry an added bonus.

But pause for a second, before the long march gathers too much speed. The numbers telling pollsters they didn’t trust Trump before polling day included many who then, statistically, went for him when they had to decide. (Of the 67% of white women who didn’t revere him, some 53% backed Trump nonetheless.) In short, lack of trust was no bust. It wasn’t necessarily the case that those consuming fake social media news were oblivious to the “real Trump”. Millions knew, but wanted a change more than they didn’t want the candidate.

And though the eruptions over Facebook are significant, they’re surely only part of the story of Clinton’s defeat as, last week, Democrats put lack of a coherent economic policy top of their own inquest list. Just because the pollsters and pundits got it wrong a fortnight ago doesn’t automatically mean they’ve got it right now.

Beyond that, too, there’s the question of what kind of coverage – worldwide as well as American – can catch the mood in a world where “post-truth” is Oxford Dictionaries’ word of the year. The stock response from most press websites, after a first sniff of disdain, centres on the greater professionalism and resources deployed by newspapers and their allied sites. You know it’s right because we’re telling you so. This must, therefore, be the sword of truth for future usage too.

But how does that fit with the coverage we saw during the campaign, which almost inevitably became more partisan as the weeks of bile flowed by? Trump got plenty of attention. Clinton often seemed an afterthought. But the weight of such attention was hugely negative. Remember: pro-Democrat endorsements in editorial columns ran 27:1.

Of course booming editorials didn’t work. Maybe Facebook marginally tipped some things another way, but why should journalism, roaring furiously just as it did before 8 November, yield a different basic result? The Washington Post, for one, couldn’t have launched a more deadly series of salvoes against Candidate Trump; even the Daily Mail might have envied its visceral hostility.

But who wants four more years of the same in a war of attrition? President Trump will only take to Twitter and begin berating the New York Times again, because when the fight is febrile and flaky, he wins. The more his term of office seems like his campaign, the better for him.

There’s a danger for journalism itself here. Thousands of newspapers around the world will be told (often by their readers) to “give Trump a chance”. Loyal, often cautious, conformism will mute American anger, as it did through the George W years. But the kind of funding push John Oliver wants also risks exactly the kind of hyperbolic response which suits Donald Trump.

The peril isn’t Facebook alone. It’s the generalised perception of fake news values everywhere you look, including in serious press coverage: the peril of its appearance to readers as a spreading infection. And how do you combat that?

By being forensic, detail-perfect and cool. By letting facts lead and making sure rhetoric follows. If democracy quivers in the shadow of Trump Tower, real understanding of what’s at stake is journalism’s job – a hopefully well-funded battle for hearts and minds.

• Piers Morgan knows Trump well. He said he would win. He’s just had a 15-minute phone chat with the Donald (roughly the same length as Theresa). So frankly, who needs an ennobled Nigel when you’ve got Morgan close by in a breakfast TV studio? He’s cheerful, he’s cheap (or cheaper than free-spending Ukip anyway), the great interlocutor who voted Remain. Arise, Sir Piers?

• Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, owner of the Wall Street Journal and the Sun, plus much else in between, posts a first quarter loss as overall revenues slip from $2.01bn to $1.97bn. Well, that’s the pain of sliding print advertising revenues affecting newsrooms everywhere, of course. But you can also add one new factor – $36m lost to “foreign exchange headwinds from a weakened British pound”. Ah! “EU-REKA!”, as the Bun might say. It’s an odd headwind that blows nobody any good.